7 ms·

Mozilla doesn't seem to have a clue why people prefer firefox. It's not because of privacy or security, though that's nice. It's certainly not because it behave

by guelo 4y ago

Mozilla doesn't seem to have a clue why people prefer firefox. It's not because of privacy or security, though that's nice. It's certainly not because it behaves similarly to chrome. It was always the extensibility. The power of plugins that allowed adblocking to be invented on firefox. They threw that away in the name of security and supposed clean code. Clean code doesn't get you users.

mmmrk 4y ago
I'm a decade-long user and am perfectly fine with modern Firefox (plus uBlock), both on the desktop and on Android. In fact, I don't want to go back to the before-times. Speak for yourself.
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  Speaking for myself, I wish I could run more addons in Firefox for Android than just uBlock Origin. (I'm a 15+ year user, I started using it when I discovered I could run it off a flash drive on locked-down shared computers.)
  - capitainenemo 4y ago
    Ditto... For example. They allow NoScript, but they blocked Custom Style Script, Tampermonkey/Violentmonkey, Old Reddit Redirect all of which I used for small tweaks to common sites with poor non-JS CSS defaults to make NoScript more usable. They also blocked about:config (fixed by using F-Droid Fennec). I also lost functionality that I had relied on (not going to turn this into a rant on that - and that's probably due to the rewrite, but it's still unfortunate). Here are the addons I'm still miss post change. There's been no modifications to the list since. "View Source" "Tampermonkey" "Old Reddit Redirect" "Custom Style Script" "Android PDF.js" "uMatrix" "Alt Text Viewer" The only one they had an adequate replacement for was "Dark Mode" - "Dark Reader" does basically same job with slightly less convenient UI. "Dark Reader" is also an extremely crude alternative for custom CSS.
- throw10920 4y ago
  I'm also a decades-long user, and am very unhappy with many of the changes that Mozilla has made to Firefox (both on the desktop and on Android), and I do want to go back to the before-times. I feel like it should be obvious that, at least in the case of addons, some users want addons and some users don't care about addons, but very very few users explicitly don't want addons to be available at all, and that consequently the correct approach is to make addons available.
- superkuh 4y ago
  Don't worry, he's speaking for the majority of long term firefox users. You're the exception. I started using Firefox when it was Gecko/Phoenix in 2002, then Firebird, then Firefox. I started using it because it was so customizable. I stopped using it at version 37 in 2015 because that was when Mozilla destroyed the browser by removing user freedoms to install their own add-ons without Mozilla's approval. And no, using Nightly (alpha renamed aurora renamed nightly) is not an option because it is extremely crashy on non-standard OS/Distros. Since 2015 Firefox has become rapidly less capable and rapidly more 'secure' for non-technical users. It's just not what I or the original userbase want. But like with all things Mozilla (including the original employees and CEO) we've been replaced. There's plenty of users who just want Chrome that's not labeled Chrome and Firefox modern gives it to them.
  - seszett 4y ago
    Just to chime in, I also started using Phoenix in 2002, but it wasn't because it was customizable. I've never used more than a couple of extensions and I actually have every extension I need on Android, so I'm fully satisfied for my particular use case. I still think most of what Mozilla does with Firefox is absolutely stupid and I wish it was different because attracting or retaining more users would make Firefox less likely to die, and generally help the web.
  - Arnavion 4y ago
    FWIW my distro's firefox package allows installing my own extensions. I wouldn't be using it if it didn't.
  - soundnote 4y ago
    > There's plenty of users who just want Chrome that's not labeled Chrome and Firefox modern gives it to them. Firefox isn't Chrome that's not labeled Chrome, though. Less customization doesn't mean it's necessarily more Chrome-like, especially lately where Chrome's implementing things like tab groups and keeping more or less the same UI design. The new Firefox looks more Safari-ish than Chrome-ish. to me.
    - superkuh 4y ago
- sbcd 4y ago
  >Speak for yourself Haha. Firefox went from above 20% marketshare in its early days, to below 4% today, and the number is continually dwindling. At this point it's the few defensive, aggressive fanboys left who are "speaking for themselves". We'll probably still hear this kind of comment from the likes of you even when usage drops below 0.01%. And I don't want to hear the "it's chrome's fault" again from the FF brigade, IE had more marketshare in the IE vs Netscape days than Chrome has today, and it didn't stop Firefox from eating at IE's shares.
  - slightwinder 4y ago
    Firefox decline started long before they switched the extensions-system, In fact they lost majority of their share before that point, and seem to have gained a bit momentum back because of it, temporary. > And I don't want to hear the "it's chrome's fault" again from the FF brigade, Sure, who cares about facts when you can have guts-feeling... > IE had more marketshare in the IE vs Netscape days than Chrome has today, and it didn't stop Firefox from eating at IE's shares. IE had no marketing at that point, while Firefox did had significant marketing at the time. Chrome then started also with big marketing, while Firefox was busy with dying projects. Coincidence? Seems like marketing is a major factor for success even here.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  If you compare the marketshare of firefox a decade ago to the marketshare of firefox now, you can determine pretty precisely how extreme a minority you are in that.
  - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
    As if that has anything to do with it, Chrome is even worse in that regard and it's market share has only grown.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Even worse in what regard? Did you reply to the right comment? Chrome imitates Chrome far better than Firefox does. I just don't think they can catch up at this point. edit: maybe you meant addons? Chrome has more addons, with more users, updated more often. Chrome fails at ublock because it wants to, but as long as you're not messing with Google's core business, Chrome is (of course) going to be better off than the product of the endangered company that solely survives from Google's donations.
      - yoasif_ 4y ago
        More addons on mobile?
        krzyk 4y ago
        Chrome has any addons on mobile?
        mardifoufs 4y ago
        Kiwi browser is basically chrome but with full extension/dev tools support. Nothing custom, all stock chrome. But I know the devs behind that browser rely on data collection themselves, so it's less than ideal (you can I think turn all of that off but I'm not sure). But it shows that it is possible to have full add-on support on mobile chromium. Especially considering Kiwi was developed by a single dev initially. Most open source chromium forks on Android don't have add-ons though, so kiwi is the best option. I guess it's usually because those forks are usually very privacy centric so add-on support is far from a priority. Kiwi on the other hand is basically stock desktop chrome Edit: apparently they don't outright collect user data! >The browser is getting paid by search engines for every search done using Kiwi Browser. >Depending on the search engine choice, requests may go via Kiwibrowser / Kiwisearchservices servers. This is for invoicing our search partners and provide alternative search results (e.g. bangs aka "shortcuts"). >In some countries, the browser displays sponsored tiles or news on the homepage. >User data (browsing, navigation, passwords, accounts) is not collected because we have no interest to know what you do in the browser. Our main goal is to convince you to use a search engine partner, and this search engine makes money / new partnerships and shares revenue with us.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  then you're not a poweruser. you'd be perfectly fine with stock Chrome too.
doix 4y ago
Yeah, when they did the big performance rewrite(quantum?) and killed pentadactyl (vim mode), I was really upset. I remember using Firefox 52-esr for as long as I could to keep my workflow the same. In my mind, that was peak Firefox. Yes performance wasn't great, but I didn't care. It was good enough and I mostly browsed with JavaScript disabled. The new vim mode plugins can't compete with the old plugins because they are much more restricted in what they can do.
- causi 4y ago
  The really galling thing is they lied right to our damn faces about how "the new faster systems breaks the old add-on system" while they were still using XUL behind the scenes. In fact an HN reader compiled versions of Firefox 57 and above with user-installed XUL enabled and they work perfectly well.
  - yoasif_ 4y ago
    Nothing is really stopping people from keeping those extensions compatible. Unsupported doesn't mean impossible - it just means you need to do some tweaks: https://webextensions-experiments.readthedocs.io https://webextensions-experiments.readthedocs.io
    - causi 4y ago
      I'm not understanding how that relates to the fact that the only thing stopping users from installing their XUL extensions on FF57 was a software switch they weren't allowed to touch without editing and compiling from source.
      - yoasif_ 4y ago
        No editing or compilation needed. You just needed to disable signature checks (xpinstall.signatures.required) and enable extension experiments (extensions.experiments.enabled) in a developer edition version (or nightly) version of the browser.
causi 4y ago
Mozilla lost the plot the day they decided chasing Chrome was more important than appealing to their actual userbase. That was about the time they started incrementing version numbers every six weeks and rendered the numbers meaningless.
- dblohm7 4y ago
  Or you know, we just wanted to offer the closest thing we could get to continuous delivery of desktop software?
  - causi 4y ago
    Which is a great justification for releasing updates every six weeks. Destroying the paradigm of "integer release = major revision" instead of "Firefox 5.102" is what makes it a pointless dick-measuring contest with Chrome. One you lost, by the way.
slightwinder 4y ago
> It was always the extensibility. Going by the numbers, that's far from the truth. Majority of user never used addons, not even adblockers. Even the most popular addons are only used by a small minority of users. I'm also a big addon-user and complain what firefox has lost over time. But we should also admit that we are a minority, and addons are simply not the major selling point for a mainstream product's success.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  You shouldn't be afraid to cater to the minority of power users. Power users are the ones that make browser recommendations to an outsized group of people, e.g. friends, relatives and coworkers. They are also the ones that drive new standard adoption. It's entirely plausible that when you alienate a power user, you also alienate their entire social circle, dependent on them for tech advice, so you lose 20x-100x of your audience/users. I'm not saying that's exactly what happened, but it definitely happened to some degree. Personally, I no longer recommend or use Firefox to anyone. The techy people in my circle use Brave or ungoogled Chromium. The untechy ones use Chrome/Edge and maybe have Opera/Vivaldi as their backup browser or Safari if they're big Apple fans. Almost no one uses FF anymore. Without its extensibility, it simply doesn't compete anymore.
- rurp 4y ago
  I think it's hard to tease out the size of effect. Extensions are only used by a minority of users, but that's mostly the set of vocal power users that are likely to be the go-to tech person within their social circles. I'm sure I'm far from the only HNer that has recommended or installed Firefox for many friends and family. I mean, I used to recommend and install Firefox before their terrible management turned the org into a dumpster fire. They've lost both myself and everyone I would have turned onto Firefox.
  - slightwinder 4y ago
    That might have been 20 years ago when Firefox grew from it's grassroot-movement. But Chrome started without extensions and grew more through marketing and Googles fame. Power users have their influence even today, but I'd say it's not as strong as it was in the old days. Most users have emancipated themselves from us, and can choose now on their own, because this kind of information is not arcane anymore.
throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
they know it. that's why they've killed XUL. that's why they're going even further by enforcing an inferior extension standard from their supposed competitor. that's why they've killed off the extensions and about:config for the android version. that's why you can't even use a private extension on desktop without jumping through the hoops. that's why usercss (toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets - legacy and disabled by default - the writing is on the wall already) and userjs will get axed. that's why about:config will get axed on the desktop version as well. all of that is just off the top of my head. and in the end, Firefox will be a clunky and inferior alternative for Chrome with not 2%, but 0.2% of the market. which is the goal.
- anonymousab 4y ago
  > which is the goal I don't think so. There's many more ways and decisions they could have gotten away with to make Firefox worse without outright killing it, that they haven't done (yet). Rather, I think it's more likely that Firefox, the browser application, is a bit of an albatross to the Mozilla foundation. Something they begrudgingly have to live with, at least in the short term. It's their organization's 'product', but to a certain layer of leadership and above, it's just another vehicle for their broader mission which could be accomplished much easier by just being a chrome fork instead. It'd also remove the need to hire and retain so many pesky and annoying engineers. Such that the Mozilla corp. is something they have to keep around, but definitely not something they want to keep around. It is an attractive way of rationalizing the astonishing and bewildering decision making at Mozilla.
- dblohm7 4y ago
  No. > that's why they've killed XUL We couldn't deliver a multiprocess browser without doing it. > about:config for the android version I completely supported this and continue to do so. GeckoView on Android works completely differently than desktop Firefox, and about:config's semantics are not identical between the two. A few of us were interested in offering an alternative that gave users a way to make adjustments in a way that was "safe," but as you can imagine that has never been a management priority.
  - 4y ago

by guelo 4y ago

mmmrk 4y ago

I'm a decade-long user and am perfectly fine with modern Firefox (plus uBlock), both on the desktop and on Android. In fact, I don't want to go back to the before-times. Speak for yourself.

MerelyMortal 4y ago
Speaking for myself, I wish I could run more addons in Firefox for Android than just uBlock Origin. (I'm a 15+ year user, I started using it when I discovered I could run it off a flash drive on locked-down shared computers.)
- capitainenemo 4y ago
  Ditto... For example. They allow NoScript, but they blocked Custom Style Script, Tampermonkey/Violentmonkey, Old Reddit Redirect all of which I used for small tweaks to common sites with poor non-JS CSS defaults to make NoScript more usable. They also blocked about:config (fixed by using F-Droid Fennec). I also lost functionality that I had relied on (not going to turn this into a rant on that - and that's probably due to the rewrite, but it's still unfortunate). Here are the addons I'm still miss post change. There's been no modifications to the list since. "View Source" "Tampermonkey" "Old Reddit Redirect" "Custom Style Script" "Android PDF.js" "uMatrix" "Alt Text Viewer" The only one they had an adequate replacement for was "Dark Mode" - "Dark Reader" does basically same job with slightly less convenient UI. "Dark Reader" is also an extremely crude alternative for custom CSS.
throw10920 4y ago
I'm also a decades-long user, and am very unhappy with many of the changes that Mozilla has made to Firefox (both on the desktop and on Android), and I do want to go back to the before-times. I feel like it should be obvious that, at least in the case of addons, some users want addons and some users don't care about addons, but very very few users explicitly don't want addons to be available at all, and that consequently the correct approach is to make addons available.
superkuh 4y ago
Don't worry, he's speaking for the majority of long term firefox users. You're the exception. I started using Firefox when it was Gecko/Phoenix in 2002, then Firebird, then Firefox. I started using it because it was so customizable. I stopped using it at version 37 in 2015 because that was when Mozilla destroyed the browser by removing user freedoms to install their own add-ons without Mozilla's approval. And no, using Nightly (alpha renamed aurora renamed nightly) is not an option because it is extremely crashy on non-standard OS/Distros. Since 2015 Firefox has become rapidly less capable and rapidly more 'secure' for non-technical users. It's just not what I or the original userbase want. But like with all things Mozilla (including the original employees and CEO) we've been replaced. There's plenty of users who just want Chrome that's not labeled Chrome and Firefox modern gives it to them.
- seszett 4y ago
  Just to chime in, I also started using Phoenix in 2002, but it wasn't because it was customizable. I've never used more than a couple of extensions and I actually have every extension I need on Android, so I'm fully satisfied for my particular use case. I still think most of what Mozilla does with Firefox is absolutely stupid and I wish it was different because attracting or retaining more users would make Firefox less likely to die, and generally help the web.
- Arnavion 4y ago
  FWIW my distro's firefox package allows installing my own extensions. I wouldn't be using it if it didn't.
- soundnote 4y ago
  > There's plenty of users who just want Chrome that's not labeled Chrome and Firefox modern gives it to them. Firefox isn't Chrome that's not labeled Chrome, though. Less customization doesn't mean it's necessarily more Chrome-like, especially lately where Chrome's implementing things like tab groups and keeping more or less the same UI design. The new Firefox looks more Safari-ish than Chrome-ish. to me.
  - superkuh 4y ago
sbcd 4y ago
>Speak for yourself Haha. Firefox went from above 20% marketshare in its early days, to below 4% today, and the number is continually dwindling. At this point it's the few defensive, aggressive fanboys left who are "speaking for themselves". We'll probably still hear this kind of comment from the likes of you even when usage drops below 0.01%. And I don't want to hear the "it's chrome's fault" again from the FF brigade, IE had more marketshare in the IE vs Netscape days than Chrome has today, and it didn't stop Firefox from eating at IE's shares.
- slightwinder 4y ago
  Firefox decline started long before they switched the extensions-system, In fact they lost majority of their share before that point, and seem to have gained a bit momentum back because of it, temporary. > And I don't want to hear the "it's chrome's fault" again from the FF brigade, Sure, who cares about facts when you can have guts-feeling... > IE had more marketshare in the IE vs Netscape days than Chrome has today, and it didn't stop Firefox from eating at IE's shares. IE had no marketing at that point, while Firefox did had significant marketing at the time. Chrome then started also with big marketing, while Firefox was busy with dying projects. Coincidence? Seems like marketing is a major factor for success even here.
pessimizer 4y ago
If you compare the marketshare of firefox a decade ago to the marketshare of firefox now, you can determine pretty precisely how extreme a minority you are in that.
- CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
  As if that has anything to do with it, Chrome is even worse in that regard and it's market share has only grown.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Even worse in what regard? Did you reply to the right comment? Chrome imitates Chrome far better than Firefox does. I just don't think they can catch up at this point. edit: maybe you meant addons? Chrome has more addons, with more users, updated more often. Chrome fails at ublock because it wants to, but as long as you're not messing with Google's core business, Chrome is (of course) going to be better off than the product of the endangered company that solely survives from Google's donations.
    - yoasif_ 4y ago
      More addons on mobile?
      - krzyk 4y ago
        Chrome has any addons on mobile?
        mardifoufs 4y ago
        Kiwi browser is basically chrome but with full extension/dev tools support. Nothing custom, all stock chrome. But I know the devs behind that browser rely on data collection themselves, so it's less than ideal (you can I think turn all of that off but I'm not sure). But it shows that it is possible to have full add-on support on mobile chromium. Especially considering Kiwi was developed by a single dev initially. Most open source chromium forks on Android don't have add-ons though, so kiwi is the best option. I guess it's usually because those forks are usually very privacy centric so add-on support is far from a priority. Kiwi on the other hand is basically stock desktop chrome Edit: apparently they don't outright collect user data! >The browser is getting paid by search engines for every search done using Kiwi Browser. >Depending on the search engine choice, requests may go via Kiwibrowser / Kiwisearchservices servers. This is for invoicing our search partners and provide alternative search results (e.g. bangs aka "shortcuts"). >In some countries, the browser displays sponsored tiles or news on the homepage. >User data (browsing, navigation, passwords, accounts) is not collected because we have no interest to know what you do in the browser. Our main goal is to convince you to use a search engine partner, and this search engine makes money / new partnerships and shares revenue with us.
throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
then you're not a poweruser. you'd be perfectly fine with stock Chrome too.

doix 4y ago

Yeah, when they did the big performance rewrite(quantum?) and killed pentadactyl (vim mode), I was really upset. I remember using Firefox 52-esr for as long as I could to keep my workflow the same. In my mind, that was peak Firefox. Yes performance wasn't great, but I didn't care. It was good enough and I mostly browsed with JavaScript disabled. The new vim mode plugins can't compete with the old plugins because they are much more restricted in what they can do.

causi 4y ago
The really galling thing is they lied right to our damn faces about how "the new faster systems breaks the old add-on system" while they were still using XUL behind the scenes. In fact an HN reader compiled versions of Firefox 57 and above with user-installed XUL enabled and they work perfectly well.
- yoasif_ 4y ago
  Nothing is really stopping people from keeping those extensions compatible. Unsupported doesn't mean impossible - it just means you need to do some tweaks: https://webextensions-experiments.readthedocs.io https://webextensions-experiments.readthedocs.io
  - causi 4y ago
    I'm not understanding how that relates to the fact that the only thing stopping users from installing their XUL extensions on FF57 was a software switch they weren't allowed to touch without editing and compiling from source.
    - yoasif_ 4y ago
      No editing or compilation needed. You just needed to disable signature checks (xpinstall.signatures.required) and enable extension experiments (extensions.experiments.enabled) in a developer edition version (or nightly) version of the browser.

causi 4y ago

Mozilla lost the plot the day they decided chasing Chrome was more important than appealing to their actual userbase. That was about the time they started incrementing version numbers every six weeks and rendered the numbers meaningless.

dblohm7 4y ago
Or you know, we just wanted to offer the closest thing we could get to continuous delivery of desktop software?
- causi 4y ago
  Which is a great justification for releasing updates every six weeks. Destroying the paradigm of "integer release = major revision" instead of "Firefox 5.102" is what makes it a pointless dick-measuring contest with Chrome. One you lost, by the way.

slightwinder 4y ago

> It was always the extensibility. Going by the numbers, that's far from the truth. Majority of user never used addons, not even adblockers. Even the most popular addons are only used by a small minority of users. I'm also a big addon-user and complain what firefox has lost over time. But we should also admit that we are a minority, and addons are simply not the major selling point for a mainstream product's success.

antisthenes 4y ago
You shouldn't be afraid to cater to the minority of power users. Power users are the ones that make browser recommendations to an outsized group of people, e.g. friends, relatives and coworkers. They are also the ones that drive new standard adoption. It's entirely plausible that when you alienate a power user, you also alienate their entire social circle, dependent on them for tech advice, so you lose 20x-100x of your audience/users. I'm not saying that's exactly what happened, but it definitely happened to some degree. Personally, I no longer recommend or use Firefox to anyone. The techy people in my circle use Brave or ungoogled Chromium. The untechy ones use Chrome/Edge and maybe have Opera/Vivaldi as their backup browser or Safari if they're big Apple fans. Almost no one uses FF anymore. Without its extensibility, it simply doesn't compete anymore.
rurp 4y ago
I think it's hard to tease out the size of effect. Extensions are only used by a minority of users, but that's mostly the set of vocal power users that are likely to be the go-to tech person within their social circles. I'm sure I'm far from the only HNer that has recommended or installed Firefox for many friends and family. I mean, I used to recommend and install Firefox before their terrible management turned the org into a dumpster fire. They've lost both myself and everyone I would have turned onto Firefox.
- slightwinder 4y ago
  That might have been 20 years ago when Firefox grew from it's grassroot-movement. But Chrome started without extensions and grew more through marketing and Googles fame. Power users have their influence even today, but I'd say it's not as strong as it was in the old days. Most users have emancipated themselves from us, and can choose now on their own, because this kind of information is not arcane anymore.

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago

they know it. that's why they've killed XUL. that's why they're going even further by enforcing an inferior extension standard from their supposed competitor. that's why they've killed off the extensions and about:config for the android version. that's why you can't even use a private extension on desktop without jumping through the hoops. that's why usercss (toolkit.legacyUserProfileCustomizations.stylesheets - legacy and disabled by default - the writing is on the wall already) and userjs will get axed. that's why about:config will get axed on the desktop version as well. all of that is just off the top of my head. and in the end, Firefox will be a clunky and inferior alternative for Chrome with not 2%, but 0.2% of the market. which is the goal.

anonymousab 4y ago
> which is the goal I don't think so. There's many more ways and decisions they could have gotten away with to make Firefox worse without outright killing it, that they haven't done (yet). Rather, I think it's more likely that Firefox, the browser application, is a bit of an albatross to the Mozilla foundation. Something they begrudgingly have to live with, at least in the short term. It's their organization's 'product', but to a certain layer of leadership and above, it's just another vehicle for their broader mission which could be accomplished much easier by just being a chrome fork instead. It'd also remove the need to hire and retain so many pesky and annoying engineers. Such that the Mozilla corp. is something they have to keep around, but definitely not something they want to keep around. It is an attractive way of rationalizing the astonishing and bewildering decision making at Mozilla.
dblohm7 4y ago
No. > that's why they've killed XUL We couldn't deliver a multiprocess browser without doing it. > about:config for the android version I completely supported this and continue to do so. GeckoView on Android works completely differently than desktop Firefox, and about:config's semantics are not identical between the two. A few of us were interested in offering an alternative that gave users a way to make adjustments in a way that was "safe," but as you can imagine that has never been a management priority.
- 4y ago